Ms. Stein received 1% of the vote in all three states but, as ABC News put it, wanted a recount to check the integrity of the vote:

“Stein, who received about 1 percent of the vote in all three states, says her intent is to verify the accuracy of the vote. She has suggested, with no evidence, that votes cast were susceptible to computer hacking.”

Mind you, the candidate who stood absolutely no chance of winning and then received 1% of the vote wanted a recount to … verify the accuracy of 1% of the vote?

Obviously not. Stein is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton.

The two presidential candidates demanded recounts, alleging that somehow, if you squint your eyes and turn around three times, that the Russian government had penetrated the voting machines in the three states’ separate voting systems and had swung the vote for Donald Trump.

Though the candidates had evidence with all the weight of a box of hair, the media and the Democrats, but I repeat myself*, seized upon the mere request for recounts as prima facie evidence that obviously something was amiss–especially since Hillary Clinton lost a race the media predicted her win.

The speculation about the Russians potentially hacking voting systems began last summer when Senate minority leader Harry Reid set the media bait for the story by asking the FBI to investigate if such a hypothetical situation was possible.

The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked the F.B.I. on Monday to investigate evidence suggesting that Russia may try to manipulate voting results in November.

In a letter to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., Mr. Reid wrote that the threat of Russian interference “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.” Recent classified briefings from senior intelligence officials, Mr. Reid said in an interview, have left him fearful that President Vladimir V. Putin’s “goal is tampering with this election.”

Now in fairness, note that at the time, hackers had been conducting a slo-mo bloodletting of the Democratic Party. First, with the email leaks of the Democratic National Committee, which led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The emails showed Ms. Wasserman-Schultz used the apparatus of the DNC to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s campaign in favor of Mrs. Clinton. After Wasserman-Schultz was drummed out, she confirmed her ardor for Hillary and joined the Clinton camp.

The leaks of Hillary Clinton intimate and campaign chair John Podesta also revealed embarrassing inside information.

USA Today reports the “juiciest” emails were ones in which Clinton insiders mocked white people, Catholics, “needy Latinos”, and disparaged Christians in general. They revealed that the #2 at the DNC and CNN contributor* was leaking debate questions to Mrs. Clinton. Worse, they showed seeming collusion with the Justice Department over the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s private server and leak of classified information.

Many people believed that Russian hackers were behind the leaks.

Things were looking pretty bad for the Democrats. They were squirming. This was the only time that Democrats conceded publicly that, gosh, hacking emails is a bad, bad thing (see Democrats’ response to Republicans holding hearings about Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server).

Fast forward to the ‘champagne anyone?’ November 8th Hillary Clinton loss, and as quickly as you can say ‘voter ID is voter suppression,’ Jill Stein bagged a few mil to order recounts, you know, for voter integrity’s sake.

But this Hail Mary effort is a three-fer.

For the Democrats it could net Mrs. Clinton more popular or even more electoral votes. For another, the rhythmic media story line about electoral votes vis a vis popular vote may help marginalize Donald Trump and his mandate to get things done, if only for the Mother Jones or The Nation crowd.

But the third pay off is that Republicans have been handed by leftists and the media, the moral authority to ask for more election integrity, including voter ID.

Jill Stein has already established that it doesn’t matter if the candidate didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, the question about the ‘integrity’ of the process is all the pretext one needs.

President-elect Trump took incoming fire when he made the above statements about voter fraud. The media portrayed him as kooky, out-of-touch, having “no evidence,” and engaging in a flight of fancy or whatever pejorative they could ascribe to him.

“True the Vote absolutely supports President-elect Trump’s recent comment about the impact of illegal voting, as reflected in the national popular vote. We are still collecting data and will be for several months, but our intent is to publish a comprehensive study on the significant impact of illegal voting in all of its many forms and begin a national discussion on how voters, states, and the Trump Administration can best address this growing problem.”

True the Vote (TTV) is an IRS-designated 501(c)(3) voters’ rights organization, founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process. TTV empowers organizations and individuals across the nation to actively protect the rights of legitimate voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. For more information, please visit www.truethevote.org.

As I pointed out in my story for Independent Journal Review on prosecuted voter fraud cases, they are but an infinitesimal number of the actual, suspected cases of voter fraud.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation conducted a limited study–limited by government officials–demonstrating that more than 1000 illegal voters cast ballots in only eight counties. All tolled, the illegal voters voted 300 times.

As voter fraud expert and journalist John Fund pointed out about the limited Virginia study:

He was able to get voter-registration records from eight of Virginia’s 133 cities and counties, and found 1046 illegal aliens who were illegally registered to vote. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, a number of those aliens had voted some 300 times.

Imagine if the organization had been able to match actual voters with voting records in all 95 Virginia counties.

As John Fund also pointed out in National Review, early on the Obama administration has instructed its lawyers to look the other way on voter fraud cases, even though Pew Research showed millions of voters registered to vote in two states or whose information is outdated on the existing voter rolls:

Even though that’s a rich vein of potential mischief for fraudsters, the Obama administration hasn’t filed a single lawsuit in eight years demanding that counties clean up their voter rolls, as they are required to do by the federal “motor voter” law. I’ve spoken to three Justice Department lawyers who attended a meeting on Nov. 30, 2009, in which they claim then-deputy assistant attorney general Julie Fernandez said the DOJ would not be enforcing that provision of the motor voter law because it ran counter to the law’s overall goal of “increasing turnout.” (Ms. Fernandez did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) [emphasis added]

As I also pointed out in my piece, the head of California Election Integrity Project, Linda Paine, told me that voter fraud is a natural by product of California’s laissez faire policy of letting everybody vote. It is the actual carrying out of the Obama desire to “increase turnout” by doing nothing to stop fraud:

“What we’ve documented in California is a systemic failure in the voting process. By not enforcing existing rules on verifying voters, registrars erode the integrity of the process.

There’s an overall manipulation of the voter process, including lax statewide standards, that allow people to be impersonated at the polls. And because poll workers don’t check signatures or ID, there [is] almost no way to catch it — unless they choose to.”

Those who would be willing to manipulate the voting process can do it.

It’s got so many open doors to fraud that it’s like Swiss cheese.”

Indeed, she says they don’t even bother calling it “voter fraud” anymore. It’s really “voter impersonation” and it happens all the time in California. How often? We have no idea because:

“You cannot actually catch a person who is doing an impersonation at the polls.”

But, you can tell where and how they’re doing it.

As Paine told me for another piece in Independent Journal Review on how this is done, outside of every polling place is something called the street index. As I wrote:

The list is a trove of information. The names, addresses, and party affiliations of every registered voter in that precinct is displayed. People who have already voted have their names crossed out.

Paine says the mischief starts at 4-5 p.m. in the afternoon. Anyone can avail himself of the Street Index, find out who hasn’t voted, write down that individual’s name and address, and go to the poll and pretend to be that person. Because no identification is required in some places, there’s no way to catch an impersonator.

–

And where is it happening? Not necessarily at the same polling place where the frauds get the info. They pick up a telephone and call or screenshot with their smart phone the information from the street index and phone it to their buddies somewhere else, such as Los Angeles because, as Paine told me:

“LA County says they count 90% of provisional ballots.

And LA COUNTY had 4.8 million registered voters in 2012 and 5.078 million this year.

If I were going to impersonate a voter, I’d go to LA County and do it.”

Even more telling?

“California has 40% of all provisional ballots voted nation wide.

Registrars have been told not to worry about it because it takes too long to verify [legitimate voters].”

Paine’s group has submitted its evidence to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. After a year’s review, it was forwarded to Washington, D.C. where Paine says nothing has been done.

Provisional ballots cover only federal races, so in a presidential election year, they’re very important.

So, as long as we’re going for recounts, let’s ask for one in California.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

But let’s not stop there. Let’s match votes with voters and find out how many people had their identities stolen–fraudulently hijacked by what is clearly an organized crime outfit to steal the vote by impersonating voters.

After all, as presidential candidate Jill Stein and her new friend Hillary Clinton have established, it’s all about election integrity and verifying the vote.